Opinion: A Material Delay – A Likely Reason for Camera Delays and Production Issues

[Graeme]

almost as bad as dissolving down your old electronics for gold!

Think magnesium easy to recycle with minimum energy costs vs raw material : https://www.intlmag.org/page/sustain_recycle_ima

Have to strip out electrical gubbings but still has to better than digging it out of the ground and refining etc.

 

[roby17269]

still 60% higher than before all this happened, it's easing, but it's still a problem. The spike was SO high that it's distorting the fact that it's still significantly more expensive.

Then we have .. who's getting it? it could be that Japanese manufacturers are not getting it as timely as in the past. if they are having to start / stop / start / stop production because they aren't getting it when they need it.. can mess everything up.

And china does crazy things to prices too.

And even if there weren't other industries taking up a lot of the supply, fluctuations in prices do not translate in real time to easings or hardenings of the supply.
Supply contracts for strategic resources tend to be futures based, not just-in-time

 

[3kramd5]

So theyre going to take 30 years of in-house knowledge of production, materials,and product development and just turn around and get someone else to do it? It doesn't work like that

For a body? Yes, it does work like that. Canon's secret sauce isn't metal.

 

[3kramd5]

how can other materials work in it's place, canon would have to go back to the drawing board and redesign the 1/3/5/7 series bodies from the ground up including structural and durability testing. I never talk much about that, but Canon plans down to the most minute details when it comes to the camera bodies.

I don't think it would require a whole-sale re-design. But let's pretend it does. If you're running Canon and someone says "hey Boss, production line is stopped. We can't get magnesium for the bodies." Would you say "Okay cool. We'll stay shut down and hope we find some." Or, would you say, "Find another solution."

 

[Richard CR]

I don't think it would require a whole-sale re-design. But let's pretend it does. If you're running Canon and someone says "hey Boss, production line is stopped. We can't get magnesium for the bodies." Would you say "Okay cool. We'll stay shut down and hope we find some." Or, would you say, "Find another solution."

I think you are vastly trivializing how hard that would be, and how costly it would be to do so.

sourcing the alternative materials, all the testing for environment, durability, wear, thermals - drafting and publishing appropriate patents, changing all the equipment to cast the camera bodies with a new material, and finally then, they can even think about production rollout.

 

[Dragon]

The other very likely possibility for delay is that there is too much existing inventory that needs to be cleared in the current economic conditions. The ongoing heavy discounts of existing models counter to general inflation reinforces that likelihood.

 

[3kramd5]

I think you are vastly trivializing how hard that would be, and how costly it would be to do so.

sourcing the alternative materials, all the testing for environment, durability, wear, thermals - drafting and publishing appropriate patents, changing all the equipment to cast the camera bodies with a new material, and finally then, they can even think about production rollout.

They don't need to test. They can do "qualification" (for lack of a better term) by similarity and analysis. It is unnecessary to publish patents. It is unnecessary to change equipment if you outsource the fabrication (not of the camera, just of the bodies).

Yes, it would be expensive. Ultimately, what would cost them more: designing out a material they may increasingly be unable to source, or funding staff and facilities not doing production without sales to recoup those funds?

 

[SonicStudios]

Can't we just replace this with AI?

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

They don't need to test. They can do "qualification" (for lack of a better term) by similarity and analysis. It is unnecessary to publish patents. It is unnecessary to change equipment if you outsource the fabrication (not of the camera, just of the bodies).

Yes, it would be expensive. Ultimately, what would cost them more: designing out a material they may increasingly be unable to source, or funding staff and facilities not doing production without sales to recoup those funds?

"They don't need to test." ... words escape me. Nice ones anyway.

Some people just want to die on the hill of being wrong on the internet.

 

[P-visie]

"They don't need to test." ... words escape me. Nice ones anyway.

Some people just want to die on the hill of being wrong on the internet.

And in addition, new materials might need to redo certifications as well.

 

[AlanF]

Expansion is negative shrinkage

You never shot film? My negs never got larger by shrinking.

 

[AlanF]

Too much milk of magnesia in this thread.

 

[ashmadux]

I did ask a USA retailer about that. They sell. They were important for total operating margin on Canon camera SKUs. Most retailers are losing money in the US just selling the camera. It's probably the same everywhere.

I refuse to pay canon prices and have relied on 3rd party grips ever since i was surprised at the quality of a mieke grip for my classic XSi 13ish years ago (then t2i, then 7d, then 6d,than 5d3, and now r5).

Yeah, glue might come off the grip material may whiten up, but...its not 400 damn dollars. And it works. Can even charge my r5 in the grip. They are now closer to 90/100 bucks though. No more 50.00 days

 

[neuroanatomist]

"They don't need to test." ... words escape me. Nice ones anyway.

Some people just want to die on the hill of being wrong on the internet.

I dunno, maybe @3kramd5 is onto something. Next time I submit an Investigational New Drug application, I’ll just tell FDA it’s similar to other drugs on the market so we didn’t bother doing preclinical safety testing, and oh-by-the-way for the same reason we don’t need to do clinical safety and efficacy testing and can we please just proceed directly to full marketing approval. Probably fine, right?

 

[P-visie]

I dunno, maybe @3kramd5 is onto something. Next time I submit an Investigational New Drug application, I’ll just tell FDA it’s similar to other drugs on the market so we didn’t bother doing preclinical safety testing, and oh-by-the-way for the same reason we don’t need to do clinical safety and efficacy testing and can we please just proceed directly to full marketing approval. Probably fine, right?

Don’t mention magnesium and your application will pass straight through the certification process .

 

[Martin0815]

except that wouldn't impact lens deliveries, cause canon to discontinue grips, and so on.

Also, new sensors aren't a problem for Canon - and those would have been done a while ago. sensors are completed well in advance, and they already did the hard heavy lifting - stacking with the R3. The R1 wouldn't be a large run, and those sensors would have been out the door a long time ago. I think most fabs including canon's are at LEAST in the 100's of wafers per hour for the entire fab, and the R1 would be a very limited run. Canon's fabs used to produce 14 million sensors per year don't forget.

And just to add - just about every single release has been plagued with backorders the day after the announcement we get a "sorry we can't meet demand, too bad, maybe next year"

'New sensors aren't a problem for Canon' - In case of stacked sensors I have some doubts, as they require significant circuitry at each pixel compared to much less complex non-stacked sensors, and are relatively new for Canon (R3 was Canon's 1st), while the number of pixels effectively doubles when a quad instead of dual pixel autofocus is used, as seemingly in the R1 and possibly in the R5 II.

I agree with your statement that just about every single release has been on backorder very quickly, which is also a positive sign that customers are highly interested - I guess that initial production capacity and yield is limited compared to worldwide demand, while Canon still wants to announce their latest and greatest products early to reduce the risk that existing and potential future customers switch to a competitor.

 

[Richard CR]

'New sensors aren't a problem for Canon' - In case of stacked sensors I have some doubts, as they require significant circuitry at each pixel compared to much less complex non-stacked sensors, and are relatively new for Canon (R3 was Canon's 1st), while the number of pixels effectively doubles when a quad instead of dual pixel autofocus is used, as seemingly in the R1 and possibly in the R5 II.

except they have been in full tilt R&D for stacked sensors for around 6+ years. I'm not entirely sure that Canon makes all the layers themselves, it could be they outsource the data substrates. Canon also bought a company to assist with sensor stacking and to make life easier on themselves.

the designs for the older sensors were actually far far FAR more complex because to eek out every last .001 stop of DR on old front side illuminated sensors was the work of real life wizards. Canon also has two sensor fabrication plants that can produce in excess of 10 million sensors per year.

 

[Martin0815]

except they have been in full tilt R&D for stacked sensors for around 6+ years. I'm not entirely sure that Canon makes all the layers themselves, it could be they outsource the data substrates. Canon also bought a company to assist with sensor stacking and to make life easier on themselves.

the designs for the older sensors were actually far far FAR more complex because to eek out every last .001 stop of DR on old front side illuminated sensors was the work of real life wizards. Canon also has two sensor fabrication plants that can produce in excess of 10 million sensors per year.

Shipping around half-made sensors would very likely cause contamination and require detailed re-alignment at sub-pixel level to continue and complete the sensor built, which would add significant cost (if it is even possible) and cause high scrap rates.

At their time older sensors were at the cutting edge of technology and very complex. However, previous production lines simply cannot be used to make stacked sensors, consequently past large-scale production does not provide any production capability for stacked sensors.

 

[Richard CR]

Shipping around half-made sensors would very likely cause contamination and require detailed re-alignment at sub-pixel level to continue and complete the sensor built, which would add significant cost (if it is even possible) and cause high scrap rates.

At their time older sensors were at the cutting edge of technology and very complex. However, previous production lines simply cannot be used to make stacked sensors, consequently past large-scale production does not provide any production capability for stacked sensors.

the reason i suggest that is that the data layers are usually done with very small design rules which Canon does not have in house with their own traditional lithography equipment. I believe Sony's under 45nm on their data and processing layers now. Mind you, Canon may have decided to use their nano-imprinting for the data layers, and that can easily go below 10nm. But i would have expected some kind of bragging by Canon if that was the case.

I would imagine they upgraded the lines over time, i doubt they decided to leave factory space as a museum to the past, and the fact that they didn't build new fabs for new lines. there's no indication that the R3 sensor layer uses different design rules than the R5, etc. and there's no reason for it. if anything the pixel layer is MUCH easier to design on a stacked sensor.

This still wouldn't be a huge issue - if there were production problems, it simply would have poorer yields than expected. it's not a binary thing.

 

[Dragon]

the reason i suggest that is that the data layers are usually done with very small design rules which Canon does not have in house with their own traditional lithography equipment. I believe Sony's under 45nm on their data and processing layers now. Mind you, Canon may have decided to use their nano-imprinting for the data layers, and that can easily go below 10nm. But i would have expected some kind of bragging by Canon if that was the case.

I would imagine they upgraded the lines over time, i doubt they decided to leave factory space as a museum to the past, and the fact that they didn't build new fabs for new lines. there's no indication that the R3 sensor layer uses different design rules than the R5, etc. and there's no reason for it. if anything the pixel layer is MUCH easier to design on a stacked sensor.

This still wouldn't be a huge issue - if there were production problems, it simply would have poorer yields than expected. it's not a binary thing.

Sony has done the most bragging about stacked sensors and one of the items that is clearly included in the stack is RAM and there is zero likelihood that those chips are made by either Sony or Canon. The biggest challenges in stacked sensors are a) the fabrication of the BSI sensor itself, since it has to be back lapped to extreme thinness and b ) the stack assembly process which includes very precise alignment and through-silicon vias in the rear layers. If you have followed the challenges TSMC has had getting capacity up on their CoWos process to keep pace with NVidia, you can get a sense of the process challenges here (and bear in mind that a FF sensor is bigger than most if not all of what TSMC is doing in CoWos). Both Sony and Canon are extremely capable of making sensors. The packaging of stacked sensors is not as clear cut. Even Sony has only offered them on a few models. One part we don't know is whether Canon is making stacked sensors in the same way as has been fairly well documented by Sony since Canon is understandably not very forthcoming with regards to their fab processes. There could be some secret sauce buried in there that we don't know about.